I have an answer........

archangel

archangel

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,024
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
No
........watching television tonight looking through the ridiculous amount of stuff on tv when up popped a number of adverts about giving up alcohol in January, I do believe we have had at least 2 other months this year with a similar suggestion.......now bear with me on this..... would it not be better to take an additional £1 of everyone's pay packet or benefits per household to help fund these charities...... there are 53 million people who could contribute through pay or benefits that would be a total of 212 million per month going into cancer research and other illnessess...... no point in arguing that not everyone can afford a £1 a week because we are all guilty of buying beer, cigarettes, lottery tickets and scratch cards......or camera gear ;) I just think it would be a better way of raising the cash without subjecting everyone to adverts and friends asking for money.....it is just my thoughts.......and remember to vote for me as Prime minister in May.......:D
 
That wouldn't be a charitable donation, it would be a tax.

I for one would say get stuffed Prime Minister Archangel. :-)
 
viv1969 said:
That wouldn't be a charitable donation, it would be a tax.

I for one would say get stuffed Prime Minister Archangel. :-)
Click to expand...


You can set up donations from your party packet and the government adds extra cash.......also you have not heard the rest of my manifesto
 
archangel said:
You can set up donations from your party packet and the government adds extra cash.......also you have not heard the rest of my manifesto
Click to expand...

I heard the only bit that matters....
archangel said:
would it not be better to take an additional £1 of everyone's paypacket
Click to expand...
No thanks.
If the government can afford to add to my "donation", they can afford to give it without me.
 
viv1969 said:
That wouldn't be a charitable donation, it would be a tax.

I for one would say get stuffed Prime Minister Archangel. :-)
Click to expand...

Hear hear. I already pay out money each month, stolen by the government to give to India and corrupt countries. Have no problem with charities but hate idiotic leaders ring fencing aid and making me contribute, as well as being pressured to sponsor another person growing a tache or turning up to work in jeans. If anything it makes me dislike charities even more so only give to poppy appeal.
 
What about the £10 a month that already comes out of my pay for charity? Can I have a pint of beer a week or something :lol:
 
neil_g said:
How do you decide which of the 1000s of charity my £1 gets split between?

What if I don't agree with some charity causes?
Click to expand...


You don't decide....it goes to the major charities first.....the ones who research cancer etc.......it doesn't go to any off the local help an Alco charities or save the loony.......the charity must be doing something to cure illness....... I think you would agree that the cancer charities etc should get first chance
 
Last edited:
cambsno said:
Hear hear. I already pay out money each month, stolen by the government to give to India and corrupt countries. Have no problem with charities but hate idiotic leaders ring fencing aid and making me contribute, as well as being pressured to sponsor another person growing a tache or turning up to work in jeans. If anything it makes me dislike charities even more so only give to poppy appeal.
Click to expand...


Obviously I would be putting a stop to foreign aid until we sort out own house out first by looking after pensioners and vulnerable children......
 
Last edited:
archangel said:
You don't decide....it goes to the major charities first.....the ones who research cancer etc.......it doesn't go to any off the local help an Alco charities or save the loony.......the charity must be doing something to cure illness....... I think you would agree that the cancer charities etc should get first chance
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the word 'charity' no longer resonates with me as it used to. When I hear about a charity, my first thought is to wonder how big is the marketing department and how well does it remunerate its executives
 
A warning has been given for the content of this post
archangel said:
You don't decide....it goes to the major charities first.....the ones who research cancer etc.......it doesn't go to any off the local help an Alco charities or save the loony.......the charity must be doing something to cure illness....... I think you would agree that the cancer charities etc should get first chance
Click to expand...


Don't be *mod edited* why should cancer charities come first? there are hundreds of other things that also need money to help fund research.

And don't make the mistake of thinking foreign aid budgets make much of a difference on what happens in this country at a local level, you need to be looking at political parties, reading their manifestos (if they stick to them) and voting accordingly on the matters that you think are important, not making random judgements on how media friendly one politician/t*** appears over another.

Or alternatively, rather than supporting cancer charities which are the best funded in the world, put some money into they other areas that really need it. Which typically is locally, charity begins at home after all.
 
archangel said:
You don't decide....it goes to the major charities first.....the ones who research cancer etc.......it doesn't go to any off the local help an Alco charities or save the loony.......the charity must be doing something to cure illness....... I think you would agree that the cancer charities etc should get first chance
Click to expand...

Get back to me when you can guarantee that the majority of monies received by these charities is not spent in "administration".
I shan't be holding my breath.
 
That one should be easily removable. I'd argue that no charity should have more than 5% operating budget. If the National Lottery can do it with their infrastructure needs then so can other charities.
 
Of course if you really want to make a difference, actually give time and get involved with the charirt/organisation of your choice, rather than just give money
 
indeed.

then you have to think that for a LOT of people charity very much starts at home. look at the rise in the use of food banks for example, can people really afford any more money taken from their pay packet no matter how small?
 
archangel said:
I think you would agree that the cancer charities etc should get first chance
Click to expand...

Not even slightly.

If that really were a no brainer (and it's very far from it - VERY far) then that's tax. You know, where we take money from everybody according to their means to pay for things for the common good.

Charity is a very different thing.
 
Nawty said:
Don't be *Mod edited* why should cancer charities come first? there are hundreds of other things that also need money to help fund research.

And don't make the mistake of thinking foreign aid budgets make much of a difference on what happens in this country at a local level, you need to be looking at political parties, reading their manifestos (if they stick to them) and voting accordingly on the matters that you think are important, not making random judgements on how media friendly one politician/t*** appears over another.

Or alternatively, rather than supporting cancer charities which are the best funded in the world, put some money into they other areas that really need it. Which typically is locally, charity begins at home after all.
Click to expand...


First if all I take offence at being called *removed*......and secondly if you had read my post post it states "cancer charities ETC".
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Who would fund the bureaucratic body who is going to administer all this?
Click to expand...

That's easy. We would just take £1 per week from everybody to fund the Chief Executive's salary. Like all the NHS men on more than £300k p.a. And the Railtrack boss who is to retire early with a £300k bonus for stopping the trains running all over Xmas.

Is there a charity that helps those who like to start topics in OOF?
 
mickledore said:
Is there a charity that helps those who like to start topics in OOF?
Click to expand...

I thought the point of OOF was a platform were people can post non photography related topics....and if there is a charity I volunteer my bank account as a resting place for funds
 
The simple answer is to go direct.
Whilst travelling in Sri Lanka, we came across a local school with limited resources in a very poor village, yet the children were imaculately turned out. The govt give material for the school uniforms to be made. We now fund that school for resources.

My daughter spends her summer holidays working in an orphanage and school in Ethiopia and we sponsor children for their accomodation and schooling. Quite a cheap way to make a serious difference
 
Byker28i said:
The simple answer is to go direct.
Whilst travelling in Sri Lanka, we came across a local school with limited resources in a very poor village, yet the children were imaculately turned out. The govt give material for the school uniforms to be made. We now fund that school for resources.

My daughter spends her summer holidays working in an orphanage and school in Ethiopia and we sponsor children for their accomodation and schooling. Quite a cheap way to make a serious difference
Click to expand...

That's fantastic you must be very proud of her. It won't do her CV any harm either.

Edited for using to FFs in of !
 
Yeah we are. She's pushing for us to go this year, the school and dorms need painting, plus the photo opportunities... ;)
Last year we raised funds to buy new mosquito nets to cover all the beds and have spares, which my daughter took out with her. This christmas we sent every child a small gift so they had something to open.
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
Yeah we are. She's pushing for us to go this year, the school and dorms need painting, plus the photo opportunities... ;)
Last year we raised funds to buy new mosquito nets to cover all the beds and have spares, which my daughter took out with her. This christmas we sent every child a small gift so they had something to open.
Click to expand...


I take my hat off to you......well done
 
Blank_Canvas said:
That's great I think if you can make it you should go !
Click to expand...
I'm seriously tempted but I don't get much holiday, just still weighing up the pros and cons but in the back of my mind I think if I don't go I'll regret it.
 
As someone who has come through cancer twice, I can not agree that we all need to have additional money taking out of our wage packets to fund cancer research. This country has a great tradition of giving to charities. if you made it compulsory then I am sure a lot of charities would suffer. And who would decide what the main charities would be? As has already been said Those with the big PR departments would spend millions on trying to get on this "list" money that would not be available to do what the charities objectives are.
 
Byker28i said:
Apparently there's 581 charities trying to find a cure for cancer? I doubt these are coordinated,so you wonder should these be combined?
Some are specific for types, some for age groups.

http://www.charitychoice.co.uk/charities/health/cancer
Click to expand...

Quick look.....a huge amount of those charities aren't searching for a cure, but rather are dedicated to helping those living with, or dying from, cancer.
But I agree there needs to be some centralisation in research funding for afinding cures.
 
archangel said:
First if all I take offence at being called *removed*......and secondly if you had read my post post it states "cancer charities ETC".
Click to expand...

Apologies for calling you a *removed* the perils of drunken posting but out of order nonetheless.

I still think its a daft idea but there you go :)
 
Byker28i said:
Apparently there's 581 charities trying to find a cure for cancer? I doubt these are coordinated,so you wonder should these be combined?
Some are specific for types, some for age groups.

http://www.charitychoice.co.uk/charities/health/cancer
Click to expand...

Great point, appreciate there are different types like skin, breast etc... but surely costs could be massively reduced if they had half a dozen charities focussed on cancer?
 
cambsno said:
Great point, appreciate there are different types like skin, breast etc... but surely costs could be massively reduced if they had half a dozen charities focussed on cancer?
Click to expand...

But within that, there are different types of breast cancer...different types of skin cancer etc., and the parts of the body in which they develop are the only common factors.
This is one reason cancer is proving so difficult to eradicate.
 
cambsno said:
Great point, appreciate there are different types like skin, breast etc... but surely costs could be massively reduced if they had half a dozen charities focussed on cancer?
Click to expand...

Possibly. Maybe. Not really. And if this were true then "they" would already do it. And of course they do. There's no magic that when funds come from government, researchers suddenly pool their techniques. They do this already - because nobody sensible thinks that one cancer research charity is genuinely in competition with any other.

It's partly a PR issue. People call stuff "cancer" like it's one disease. In fact there are dozens of different ones and often they have little to do with each other which is one reason why somebody can be cured of one kind and get another.

But back to the original post, the (main) reason why this is a non starter is who gets to choose what the "important" diseases are? People seem to think cancer is a no-brainer. But what about strokes, heart disease or life limiting diseases such as Alzheimer's, MS or even blindness? And when "the government" has collected this new tax and distributed it as they see fit, then what next? If I have a relative who has some obscure disease then the chances are that I'd still give money for that particular disease, because that's how a lot of medical charity donation works.

The proposal seems to be "why don't we raise taxes a bit to cure all disease?". The answer is that it wouldn't be "a bit".

And I'll repeat the thing I've said many times - we know how to prevent 20% of all cancer right now. Just stop smoking. That would do more than £1 on tax but it wouldn't be particularly popular. Also, ironically, it would increase cases of some of the rarer cancers (since people would live longer they have a higher chance of developing cancer). There is of course another option where we prevent most cancer by shooting people at a relatively young age but I can't see that getting much of the grey vote.
 
I shall withdraw my suggestion from the original post but I still think you should all vote me as prime minister as I have lots of great ideas including tax free camera gear and reduced prices to those on tp.....all uncle Bob's and aunty Jane's will be flogged and last but not least media companies must pay for the images and not offer credit......watch out for the full upcoming manifesto in the new year
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top